People v. Hanley
| Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
| Citation | 92 Misc.2d 465,400 N.Y.S.2d 319 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Edward J. HANLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Pierce H. Russell, Dist. Atty., for the People; Ira Mendleson, III, Troy, of counsel.
Kohn, Bookstein & Karp, Albany, for defendant; Richard A. Kohn, Albany, of counsel.
CON. G. CHOLAKIS, Judge.
The defendant is charged with the crimes of Attempt to Commit Murder in the Second Degree and Conspiracy in the First Degree. As part of an omnibus motion, he has moved for an order granting an inspection of the Grand Jury Minutes and for a dismissal of both counts of the indictment.
It appears from the testimony before the Grand Jury that the defendant, near the end of January, 1977, came to Troy, New York in an attempt to hire one Hubert Terry to murder his wife. The scheme allegedly devised by the defendant would have Hubert Terry or someone he in turn had recruited, throw a radio into the defendant's wife's bathtub while she was bathing in her home in Clifton Park, Saratoga County, New York, thereby electrocuting her.
Pursuant to that scheme and during the evening of January 31, 1977, the defendant induced his wife to take a bath, opened the door to his residence, placed the sum of $400.00 as payment on the hood of his car and then signaled for Hubert Terry and three other persons who had accompanied Terry to Saratoga County to enter the house and kill the defendant's wife according to plan.
Unknown to the defendant, Hubert Terry never intended to carry out the scheme and instead took the money from the hood of the car and reported the incident to the Troy Police Department.
The District Attorney concedes that Hubert Terry never intended to comply with the defendant's request to kill his wife.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy count of the indictment rests upon the argument that there was no conspiracy. That is, that there was insufficient evidence before the grand jury to establish that there was an agreement between the defendant and Hubert Terry or any other person having the requisite criminal intent to commit the crime and, absent that agreement, there could be no conspiracy.
The grand jury minutes are clear and it is conceded by the People that neither Hubert Terry nor those persons who accompanied him to the defendant's house in Clifton Park ever intended to carry out the defendant's scheme.
The penal law defines conspiracy as follows:
"A person is guilty of conspiracy . . . when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct."
An essential element of the offense is that there be an agreement. Conspiracy by its very nature requires a corrupt intent in the minds of at least two or more persons. People v. Mackell, 47 A.D.2d 209, 366 N.Y.S.2d 173. The Appellate Division, 4th Department, in People v. Bauer, 32 A.D.2d 463, 305 N.Y.S.2d 42, aff'd, 26 N.Y.2d 915, 310 N.Y.S.2d 101, 258 N.E.2d 399, said:
"It is well established that to constitute the crime of conspiracy there must be a corrupt agreement between two or more individuals entered into with a criminal intent to do an unlawful act either as a means or an end, following by an overt act to effect the object of the agreement." (Citations omitted)
The People argue that Penal Law § 105.30 has modified the foregoing principles. That section provides as follows:
It is no defense to a prosecution for conspiracy that, owing to criminal irresponsibility or other legal incapacity or exemption, or to unawareness of the criminal nature of the agreement or the object conduct or of the defendant's criminal purpose or to other factors precluding the mental state required for the commission of conspiracy or the object crime, one or more of the defendants co-conspirators could not be guilty of conspiracy or the object crime.
In People v. Cardosanto, 84 Misc.2d 275, 375 N.Y.S.2d 834, the Court held that in view of Penal Law Section 105.30, police officers may be co-conspirators notwithstanding the lack of criminal intent on their part. That decision was expressly disapproved in People v. Teeter, 86 Misc.2d 532, 382 N.Y.S.2d 938, where the Court said:
It seems to me that that section relates to a person's lack of criminal intent due to the lack of mental capacity or unawareness precluding the formation of a criminal intent, not to a situation where, as here, we are dealing with a person with full possession of his mental faculties and a full awareness of his situation. If this section were applicable, that all it takes to constitute a conspiracy in the first degree is one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lanni
...statutes, which intend the application of the unilateral approach (People v. Teeter, 86 Misc.2d 532, 382 N.Y.S.2d 938; People v. Hanley, 92 Misc.2d 465, 400 N.Y.S.2d 319; People v. Schwimmer, N.Y.L.J., 3/27/78, p. 13, col. 2; People v. DiDominick, 406 N.Y.S.2d 420; Marks and Paperno, Crimin......
-
People v. Schwimmer
...that New York has adopted the unilateral approach and have accordingly upheld conspiracy indictments, whereas People v. Hanley (92 Misc.2d 465, 468, 400 N.Y.S.2d 319, 322) typifies those cases which conclude that there has been no departure from the rule that "there must be a corrupt agreem......
-
People v. Teeter
...been (see People v. Bauer, 32 A.D.2d 463, 305 N.Y.S.2d 42, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 915, 310 N.Y.S.2d 101, 258 N.E.2d 399; and People v. Hanley, 92 Misc.2d 465, 400 N.Y.S.2d 319), there was no question that the defendants believed Cantaben and Cotsworth were co-conspirators. There was evidence that ......